The Federalist Papers

U.S. Congress

Saturday, November 24, 2007

Your accent is as Philadelphian as a cheesesteak! If you're not from Philadelphia, then you're from someplace near there like south Jersey, Baltimore, or Wilmington. if you've ever journeyed to some far off place where people don't know that Philly has an accent, someone may have thought you talked a little weird even though they didn't have a clue what accent it was they heard.

I saw this over at Breda's blog and I wanted to see how it turned out for me. I was shocked. Philadelphia? I've been there, and I don't sound anything like them. But the 2nd most likely choice, The South, is more correct, although most tell me that mine is a mild southern--more like a southern Midwestern accent.

Back when I was in college and graduate school, I basically lost my southern drawl. I thought I had to be sophisticated, urbane, and sound similar to a national news anchor.

Well, as I have grown and matured, I have learned to say 'The HELL with that. If they don't like my accent, they don't like me. This is who I am. It's how I was raised, take it or leave it.'

Sooooo, you are likely to hear much more of a southern drawl out of me today than at any other time since I was in high school.

Oh, and one more thing for all you Yankees out there (that's anyone in the country who doesn't live in the South), y'all just don't know how to tawk. So don't be a-telling me nothing about no accent, cuz I ain't got one! Y'all are the ones with the accent! (he he).

And don't be a-makin' fun of my drawl either, cuz I ain't gone put up with it!

Here are some of my comments from here and there in the world of politics, which I have entitled, 'This Wasn't Supposed to Happen.'

At the top of the list, of course, is the stunning revelation by veteran conservative commentator Bob Novak that Mrs. Clinton is using Nixonian 'dirty tricks' against her rivals in her own party. Mrs. Clinton stated she had explosive and scandalous information on one of her rivals. No sooner had she released the comment than Barack Hussein Obama spilled the beans that he had smoked pot and snorted cocaine back in his wild, younger days.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton is up to her neck in scandals of her own, not the least of which are planting questions all over the country in supposed 'impromptu' question and answer sessions, flip-flopping at least 3 times in one week on giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens, accepting dirty money from Norman Hsu and at least a dozen impoverished Chinese donors who supposedly gave her campaigns tens of thousands of dollars.

No one in the mainstream media has of yet held Mrs. Clinton's feet to the fire over these dirty money pyramid schemes, which are illegal.

None of this was in the playbook of the Clinton-Democratic Party-CNN-Mainstream Media political campaign to elect Hillary, of course.

Extraordinary news from the realm of science indicates that stem cell research can be done without the use of human embryos. The stem cells created from adult skin cells are just as effective in research as the use of embryonic stem cells.

GOP Presidential candidate Fred Thompson immediately praised the research that led to the breakthrough, which of course, chaps the backsides of the abortion industry, which has a vested interest in keeping science stuck in a rut--a rut which benefits abortion mills handsomely.

The only other Presidential contender in either party who praised the latest breakthrough was Mitt Romney.

Again, this announcement comes at a very bad time for those politicians and social activists who have a vested interest in promoting the practice of abortion for the purpose of making money off of 'scientific research.' Perhaps now such persons can best be used as members of the Flat Earth Society.

Speaking of Mitt Romney, the candidate made a reprehensible comment a couple of days ago to the effect that he could support the arrest and incarceration of 'abortionists.' It is to be assumed that he is referring to physicians who perform the procedure.

While one can make a case for the fact that doctors who work exclusively in abortion mills are sleazy, untrustworthy types of the baser sort, many legitimate physicians perform the procedure for entirely legitimate medical purposes. We can see all kinds of confusing legal entanglements resulting from such a move to incarcerate physicians, not the least of which is that the move would be ripe for major mistakes.

In addition, we can just hear many women thinking to themselves that it is only a short step from jailing abortionists to jailing women who have had abortions...not a very encouraging prospect for women who have been through enough emotional angst already.

Romney should have simply kept his mouth shut. This could well be his major faux pas on the campaign trail thus far, and it is a mistake that could haunt him badly.

The Pentagon was ecstatic over the latest news from Iraq. The official statistics on fatalities, casualties, terrorist and insurgent attacks surprised even the most optimistic souls in the U.S. Government. The latest figures show a very sharp decline in violence in the region, particularly in and around Baghdad.

Reports from the region indicate that local residents are actually not afraid to venture out of their homes into the streets, and businesses are beginning to flourish once again.

Leftists and other Democrats are sure to be highly disappointed that such news is forthcoming at a time when they need desperately for America to lose. The primaries are just over a month away, and then the 2008 Presidential campaign will be on in earnest...a bad time for the Democrats to face good news on a war they need the U.S. to lose.

Despite the wonderful news that our brave men and women in the U.S. military are getting the job done, Billy Richardson stated in the last Demo debate that he disagreed that the surge in Iraq is working. In fact, he said it was failing.

My, my, Billy. When the facts are so dismal for you and your Party, just keep pretending that things are as they were back some 8 months ago, eh?

By the way, have we told you lately that you are too dumb to be President?

Thursday, November 22, 2007

First I want to wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving. With all the problems we face in America at home and abroad, this is still the greatest nation on earth. We truly have much for which to be thankful.

My Thanksgiving tribute this year centers on our forebears at Plymouth. Most of us are very familiar with the story of the first Thanksgiving, when the Pilgrims gathered with their new-found Indian friends to give thanks to God for not only sparing their lives but giving them the blessing of abundance after nearly failing to survive their first winter in New England.

What you might NOT know, however, is the story behind the story. Thanksgiving is a testament to the triumph of capitalism over socialism, and this is one of the reasons collectivists in politics, the news media, and Hollywood all but ignore the holiday, referring to it instead as 'Turkey Day,' a name which, by the way, I loathe.

Not only do the collectivists hate the purely religious significance of the holiday, but they hate the story behind it and had just as soon keep you from knowing it.

When the Pilgrims first landed at Plymouth they embarked on an experiment the world had never seen. The brave new world that they forged was laden with mistakes early on that were later corrected. Had they not been corrected, they probably would not have survived.

The society that the first band of Pilgrims forged was collectivist in nature. They lived commune style, sharing everything with each other. Property was held in common. It is understandable that they would do such a thing, being alone in a strange land with strange natives. They felt they had to be collectivist to survive and to foster a sense of inter-dependence on each other.

The result, however, was less than desirable. There was no incentive to prosper, no personal pride in private ownership of property, no real motivation to excel and to do the things necessary not only to survive but thrive. Thus, when winter came they were ill-prepared to face the harsh realities of the climate. Over half of them died that winter alone.

All of these factors taught the Puritans a valuable lesson. What they were doing was not working. And, being the resilient lot that they were, they adjusted course. First of all, they ditched the socialistic model of living that nearly brought them to extinction. A capitalistic system was introduced that stressed individual responsibility and initiative, personal freedom, free trade, and private property. They made friends with their Indian neighbors who taught them how to plant corn. In turn, the Pilgrims helped the Indians, thus initiating that hallmark practice of capitalism--free trade. Goods were traded between the Pilgrims and the Indians. The colony began to thrive. Children were born. Plymouth grew. Prosperity began to replace abject poverty and illness.

By the following Autumn, the colony had flourished so much that they wanted to express their thanks to God for the bountiful plenty. They invited their Indian friends and trade partners to join them in sharing a meal during which they remembered that all blessings flow from the One above who loves His children.

However, God did not simply send a smile their way down from heaven and then swoop down to do all this for them. These hearty souls had sense enough to know that faith does not mean God does everything for us, but gives us the strength to do what WE must do. The Pilgrims discovered the path to prosperity and survival, and it was NOT socialism. When they implemented the capitalistic model of free trade and private ownership, their lot changed drastically for the better.

And THAT is the story behind the story of Thanksgiving.

You will not hear this story in our government-run schools nor in most of the hallowed halls of higher learning in America, which have succumbed to the scourge of socialism. You actually have to go back to the early part of the 20th century to find textbooks that tell this entire story, the whole truth. The 2nd half of the 20th century marked the beginning of the real censorship, and it was perpetrated by the Left. These facts as I just presented them have been banned from schools, ripped out of textbooks, and buried--tucked away on the back shelves of some historical library. The socialistic system of education in this country for the past 50 years has brainwashed generations of students into believing something entirely different about Thanksgiving than the truth.

But the truth is still the truth.

I truly hope that all of you reading this today will have a wonderful Thanksgiving. I hope you gather with friends or family, or both, to share a meal. I hope you will give thanks to God for your blessings. And I hope you will take time to pause to remember what our forebears had in mind when they came to this land.

May their vision of liberty never vanish from the earth!(Hat tip to Rush Limbaugh for inspiring the writing of this Thanksgiving Tribute).

The Brady Campaign to rob citizens of their Constitutional rights has reacted to the news of the U.S. Supreme Court's agreeing to hear the D.C. vs. Heller case. The Brady Gang stated that the U.S. District Court that struck down D.C.'s gun ban is a case of 'judicial activism.'

It gives one pause to wonder how they made this gigantic leap of 'logic.'

For the first 150 years of this nation's existence it was assumed that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteed and protected the individual's right to keep and bear arms. This is made clear by the numerous comments, speeches, and writings of the Founders of the Republic.

A mere cursory knowledge of the history of the ratification of the 'Bill of Rights,' the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, will make clear in any reasonable thinking person's mind that the entire foundational basis for having a Bill of Rights was to protect the individual rights of citizens.

Some of the signers of the Constitution were persuaded to do so only under the condition that such rights would be included as the law of the land once the original document passed the muster.

In addition, Thomas Jefferson, one of the primary advocates and writers of the Constitution, stated many times that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear firearms is one of the foundational prerequisites for a free society, and that the only way for that society to stay free was through an armed citizenry.

My friends, these key foundational principles of this nation have been nearly lost.

The second half of the 20th century brought forth judicial activism with a vengeance. The High Court and lower courts often at will changed the meaning of some of the key terms that are central to a Constitutional Republic. In essence, these judicial charlatans rewrote sections of the Constitution for all practical purposes, making null and void the original intent of the Founders.

A true judicial activist does not blink at rendering Constitutional decisions that fly in the face of original intent. In fact, the notion of original intent is important to these judicial charlatans only to the degree that they are made aware of the 'quaint, outdated views of a bygone era.'

Thus, the judicial activist feels that he/she is free to essentially write new law from the bench rather than strictly interpret the law as the Founders intended...which is the ONLY legitimate task of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Activists and their supporters such as the Brady Campaign often forget that the legislative branch alone writes the laws. And then it is up to the High Court to determine if those laws are consistent with the Constitution, or, the 'original intent' of the Founders.

If Congress, the states, or local governments pass laws that are contrary to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, as designated by the Founders themselves, then those laws are rendered null and void, and struck down.

An activist court, however, may choose not to strike down such laws in spite of the fact that they may be entirely contradictory to clear Constitutional principle.

With the tendency of the High Court to engage in judicial activism since the 1950s and 60s, many of the precepts that the Founders held dear and regarded as sacrosanct have been discarded and nearly lost. One of those precepts is the notion that an armed citizenry is essential to prevent tyranny.

The Founders considered government itself, potentially even their own government, to be the biggest threat to liberty on earth, and that an armed citizenry was necessary to keep such oppressive government in check.

I often wonder if perhaps that deep inner conviction and drive has been totally lost on our society.

Apparently the Brady Gang thinks it has, or else they would not so blatantly and erroneously claim that a federal court that struck down D.C. laws that clearly violated the beliefs and values of our Founders is an act of 'judicial activism.'

The very fact that they feel they can say such a thing publicly, with a straight face, and believe the masses will buy it, is a stinging indictment on modern American society.

In fact, the Bradys' contention that a court ruling that affirmed original intent is actually judicial activism is a chilling example of the Orwellian nightmare of 'newsspeak' and 'doublespeak.'

Almost three years after being shot while attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila has finally been indicted. Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos were sent to prison for nearly 12 years in a set-up job perpetrated by U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, who withheld evidence from the jury.

The public will finally get to see the entire corrupt fiasco played out in the media, now that the illegal alien drug smuggler has been charged with crimes.

The thing is, Johnny Sutton knew the perpetrator very well. So did others within the U.S. Justice Department. They also knew of his criminal history and background. They were also aware that while Sutton was priming Andrete-Davila to testify against Ramos and Compean, the illegal alien committed yet another crime, smuggling more drugs into the country.

The jury in the trial of Agents Ramos and Compean never heard about ANY of this, however.

It's time now to pay the piper.

With renewed interest in the case, with withheld evidence being made public, with the perpetrator being indicted, and with renewed calls for Ramos and Compean to be pardoned by President Bush, the powder keg waiting to explode has just been lit.

The corruption of the U.S. Government in this case runs deep and wide. GOP Presidential hopeful and U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter hand delivered a letter to the President, urging in the strongest civil language possible a complete investigation to the case and the freeing of the falsely-accused and convicted agents.

The Liberty Sphere has maintained all along that if there is any one single issue that could become the unraveling of the Bush Administration, it is this. The Democrats' endless 'investigations' on the Hill are all fluff and pandering to the gallery. Their saber-rattling on these peripheral issues is an exercise in wasteful spending of taxpayer's money.

Yet Congress has essentially refused to thoroughly investigate the DOJ and Johnny Sutton, despite a few lone voices crying in the wilderness.

The reason for their reluctance is not far to find. Congressional Democrats are just as skittish as the Bush Administration about doing anything about illegal aliens, the Mexican government, and those who aid and abet illegals--a felony according to the U.S. Code.

If there is any integrity at all left in members of Congress, they will scream bloody murder to high heaven until something is done about this shocking and blatant travesty of justice.

For the full story, including background information, click here to go to the website of America's Most Wanted:

Without exception, each of the Democrats who are contending for their Party's Presidential nomination stated during Thursday night's debate that they believe the U.S. Constitution affirms and protects the citizens' 'right to privacy.'

The term 'right to privacy' has become code language for those who support abortion rights. That is most unfortunate. This implies that those who are pro-life see no right to privacy in the Constitution.

Such thinking is exceedingly flawed.

For example, personally I am pro-life. I do not believe that a living human being growing inside of a woman's body is just 'another part of her body' like an appendage. While the life growing inside her is connected to her body, that life itself is separate with its own genes and chromosomes.

I do not believe that it is right to tamper with that life unless there is an overriding medical reason for doing so.

This medical reason would be determined by the woman's physician. And in that regard there is a right to privacy, due to the fact that medical information is considered private and protected by law.

Thus, if the woman in question decides to have an abortion upon the advice of her physician, it is really none of my business. Medical records are private, and as each of the Democratic candidates stated, we all have the 'right to privacy.'

Alrighty then. Let's see just how far these legal scholars are willing to go with their supposed affirmation of the Constitutional 'right to privacy,' shall we?

If it is none of my business nor the government's as to whether or not the young woman living beside me decides to have an abortion due to medical reasons, which are considered a matter of privacy, although I happen to believe that such an act may be unethical, immoral, and displaying a shocking lack of regard for the sacredness of human life, then why is it any of government's business when and where or how often I buy a gun?

The right to privacy in the Constitution protects a woman's right to end a human life but does not protect MY right to privacy when it comes to the Second Amendment, which is explicitly affirmed as an inherent right.

It is actually much easier in this country to end a baby's life than it is to buy a gun.

When I go to the gun shop to purchase a handgun or a long gun, I am required to fill out paperwork, complete with my name, address, phone number, driver's license number, and Social Security Number, and in some states I have to wait a week to 14 days before I can take possession of the firearm.

How long will it be before I have to drop 'em, bend over, and grab 'em so that they can examine my lower colon with a proctoscope before I can purchase a firearm?

Further, the right to privacy doesn't seem to bother the Dems in the least when it comes to airline safeguards, national databases, national I.D. cards, cameras on street corners, eye-I.D., and the like.

Our privacy has been flying out the window faster than a bat out of hell over the last ten years or so, under both Democratic AND Republican politicians in the Congress and White House.

Yet the Dems claim we have a Constitutional right to privacy.

Apparently, that claim only pertains to abortion rights. I am waiting for one of them to correctly extend that right to the Second Amendment and other privacy violations as well.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Democratic Presidential hopeful Joe Biden stated during Thursday night's debate that he wants to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are 'average Joes.'

Of course the candidate did not use those exact words, but what he said means the same thing. Biden said he was tired of law professors and scholars being appointed to the bench. He wants to appoint judges who 'have lived out in the real world like most people.'

The question that is paramount, however, is how, exactly, would Biden determine if these prospective judges were 'just average Joes?'

I suppose that Biden thinks he is an average Joe, since he brought up the issue. After all, his name is Joe. The problem is that he is a lawyer, just like the elites of whom he claims to have grown weary.

So, how would Biden determine the 'common folk' prerequisite? Would they need to have worked their way through college and law school by being a grease monkey in a mechanic shop in Podunk? Would they need to buy their clothes at WalMart rather than Brooks Brothers? Would they need to prefer beer and pizza over fine wine and fillet mignon?

Better still, would they need to live in a place where there are lots of old cars in the yard with no tires, propped up on concrete blocks?

Just how do any of these make a judge, particularly a Supreme Court Justice, any better at interpreting the Constitution?

The legal profession by its very nature is not conducive to 'the average Joe.' It is very much an elitist fraternity. While it is true that the country has not always been well-served by Justices who were legal scholars, neither has it always been well-served by Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents who were 'average Joes.'

Just think of Jimmy Carter, for heaven's sake.

Frankly, when it comes to Constitutional law I want someone who is well-schooled in the foundation, history, and philosophy of Constitutional thought--that is, I want a scholar who knows the original background and setting of the Constitution as well as he knows the back of his/her own hand.

He or she should be able to quote extensively from rote memory The Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, and many others.

The High Court is an entirely different animal from the executive and legislative branches of government. While the Presidency and the Congress lend themselves to the election of common folk who can connect with the average citizens, the Supreme Court is purposefully different. Justices must be able to stay above the fray and render decisions based NOT upon what the average Joes want, but what the Constitution requires.

And by the way, if you want an example of the dangers of selecting average Joes for the Supreme Court, just look at John Edwards, who comes as close as any to being what Biden would consider ideal.

Edwards has stated that the right described by the Second Amendment is a 'privilege' rather than a right--in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. He has also stated that having access to the Internet and healthcare are 'rights.'

Exactly which amendments in the Bill of Rights state this, Senator?

Give me a strict constructionist, Constitutional scholar any day of the week over an 'average Joe.' The average Joes are best left in the House of Representatives.